←back to thread

LLM Inevitabilism

(tomrenner.com)
1616 points SwoopsFromAbove | 7 comments | 15 Jul 25 04:35 UTC | HN request time: 0s | source | bottom
Show context
keiferski ◴[15 Jul 25 06:08 UTC] No.44568304[source]▶
One of the negative consequences of the “modern secular age” is that many very intelligent, thoughtful people feel justified in brushing away millennia of philosophical and religious thought because they deem it outdated or no longer relevant. (The book A Secular Age is a great read on this, btw, I think I’ve recommended it here on HN at least half a dozen times.)

And so a result of this is that they fail to notice the same recurring psychological patterns that underly thoughts about how the world is, and how it will be in the future - and then adjust their positions because of this awareness.

For example - this AI inevitabilism stuff is not dissimilar to many ideas originally from the Reformation, like predestination. The notion that history is just on some inevitable pre-planned path is not a new idea, except now the actor has changed from God to technology. On a psychological level it’s the same thing: an offloading of freedom and responsibility to a powerful, vaguely defined force that may or may not exist outside the collective minds of human society.

replies(15): >>44568532 #>>44568602 #>>44568862 #>>44568899 #>>44569025 #>>44569218 #>>44569429 #>>44571000 #>>44571224 #>>44571418 #>>44572498 #>>44573222 #>>44573302 #>>44578191 #>>44578192 #
evantbyrne ◴[15 Jul 25 13:34 UTC] No.44571000[source]▶
I'm pretty bearish on the idea that AGI is going to take off anytime soon, but I read a significant amount of theology growing up and I would not describe the popular essays from e.g., LessWrong as religious in nature. I also would not describe them as appearing poorly read. The whole "look they just have a new god!" is a common trope in religious apologetics that is usually just meant to distract from the author's own poorly constructed beliefs. Perhaps such a comparison is apt for some people in the inevitable AGI camp, but their worst arguments are not where we should be focusing.
replies(7): >>44571085 #>>44571353 #>>44571601 #>>44572817 #>>44572976 #>>44574689 #>>44576484 #
1. tsunamifury ◴[15 Jul 25 16:34 UTC] No.44572976{3}[source]▶
I jsut want to comment here that this is the classic arrogant, underread “I reject half of humanities thoughts” foolishness that OP is referring to.

I mean the lack of self awareness you have here is amazing.

replies(1): >>44574267 #
2. evantbyrne ◴[15 Jul 25 18:20 UTC] No.44574267[source]▶
To the contrary. I sped through my compsci capstone coursework first year of college and spent most of the rest of my time in philosophy, psychology, and sociology classrooms. The "hey if you squint this thing it looks like religion for the non-religious" perspective is just one I've heard countless times. It is perfectly valid to have a fact based discussion on whether there is a biological desire for religiosity, but drawing a long line from that to broadly critique someone's well-articulated ideas is pretty sloppy.
replies(1): >>44575999 #
3. tsunamifury ◴[15 Jul 25 21:29 UTC] No.44575999[source]▶
Quoting your college classes is the first sign of inexperience but I’ll Share some modern concepts.

In Adam Curtis‘s all watched over by machines of loving Grace, he makes a pretty long and complete argument that humanity has a rich history of turning over its decision-making to inanimate objects in a desire to discover ideologies we can’t form ourselves in growing complexity of our interconnectivity.

He tells a history of them constantly failing because the core ideology of “cybernetics” is underlying them all and fails to be adaptive enough to match our DNA/Body/mind combined cognitive system. Especially when scaled to large groups.

He makes the second point that humanity and many thinkers constantly also resort to the false notion of “naturalism” as the ideal state of humanity, when in reality there is no natural state of anything, except maybe complexity and chaos.

Giving yourself up to something. Specially something that doesn’t work is very much “believing in a false god.”

replies(1): >>44576458 #
4. evantbyrne ◴[15 Jul 25 22:19 UTC] No.44576458{3}[source]▶
You seem to be lost. While referencing a TV show may or may not be a rebuttal to a very specific kind of worldview, it is out of place as a response to my post to which you've failed to actually directly reference at all.

I'm addressing this point at you personally because we can all see your comments: being nasty to atheists on the internet will never be a substitute for hard evidence for your ideology.

replies(1): >>44576652 #
5. tsunamifury ◴[15 Jul 25 22:41 UTC] No.44576652{4}[source]▶
you seem to be profoundly confused Adam Curtis is a leading thinker in documentarian of our time and widely recognized in continental philosophy. The fact that you tried to dismiss him as a TV show shows you seem to be completely naïve about the topic you’re speaking about.

Second, I’m not being nasty to atheists and speaking specifically about not having false gods which if anything is a somewhat atheistic perspective

Honestly, what are you trying to say?

replies(1): >>44576735 #
6. evantbyrne ◴[15 Jul 25 22:50 UTC] No.44576735{5}[source]▶
Like I said, we can all read your comments. Needs no further elaboration. If I receive a second recommendation for Curtis then I might be inclined to check it out. Take it easy.
replies(1): >>44577984 #
7. tsunamifury ◴[16 Jul 25 02:03 UTC] No.44577984{6}[source]▶
This is such a baffling and bizarre response.